Mike Dickison’s blog of random tangents

Menu

Category Archives: Moans and Whinges

New Zealand has two species of native freshwater eel, longfins and shortfins. Longfins are found nowhere else. They live further inland than shortfins, and get older and bigger: over a century old, for ones that are 2 m long and as thick as your leg. They’re down to about 20% of their former numbers, and the population has been declining for decades from overfishing, pollution, and forest clearance. If it drops any more, DOC will have to declare them an endangered species.

Every longfin eel in NZ is a virgin. At the end of their lives, some time between 30 and 100 years old, they head out to sea, spawn in the ocean near Tonga, and die. The tiny fry make their way back to NZ and work their way up rivers as elvers, where they settle down and slowly grow bigger. So every eel we catch is one that has yet to breed.

And yet, amazingly, there’s a commercial export industry in longfin eels. It’s perfectly legal to catch tonnes of them every year, and export them alive to countries who long ago wiped out their own eel stocks but still think eels are a delicacy.

The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment prepared an excellent and very readable report on the longfin eel in 2013, looking at numbers, threats, and the commercial fishery. She concluded:

“It is critical that we stop fishing longfin eels. It is not just fishing that is a problem, but stopping it is the only action that has immediate potential to reverse the decline of this extraordinary creature.”

The commercial eel industry employs maybe 100 people, mostly part-time eel fishers, and is worth only $0.5 million a year: a tiny fraction of our exports. Quite a bit of taxpayer money is spent propping up this industry though. Apart from the PCE report, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) assembled a panel of international experts to comment on the longfin monitoring, ran workshops, consulted, and has now prepared a discussion document on the South Island quota, which it will have to administer, collect data on, make regular reports, monitor… It seems like a lot of effort so that 30 full-time eel processors can keep making private profits off a public resource.

One of the recommendations was that the MPI set up a separate quota for the South Island longfin stocks (they’d been lumped in with shortfins) so the fishery could be at least monitored and controlled. The MPI are setting the quotas for different regions in the South Island right now, and are inviting public submissions, deadline Monday 11th, 5pm – although submissions opened on June 13, fisheries biologists were apparently only told a week or two ago, and the word’s hardly gotten out. There’s a Forest and Bird blog post with some advice on making a submission (it’s quick and easy, just write a clear, concise email stating your interest in this and your opinions and suggestions). Here’s mine.

TO: FMSubmissions@mpi.govt.nz

I am writing this submission on discussion paper 2016/15, Review of Management Controls for the South Island Longfin and Shortfin Eel Fisheries (LFE 11–16 & SFE 11–16) in 2016, to comment specifically on the South Island longfin eel fishery.

I am a biologist, and Curator of Natural History at the Whanganui Regional Museum. Whanganui has a deep connection with tuna and their harvest, and local iwi have resolved to improve the health of the river so stocks can recover; in my job I talk to the community about freshwater health and the biology of our native fishes. And of course as a South Islander, and a New Zealander, I’m a stakeholder in the health of South Island freshwater ecosystems, including longfins.

The independent panel commissioned by MPI in 2015 concluded that, although longfin numbers had probably dropped 80% from its original level, the decline may have slowed or “perhaps even slightly reversed” in the last five years. I am concerned that MPI has represented this as evidence that longfin eel stocks in the South Island are now recovering and can continue to support a commercial eel harvest.

There could be numerous explanations for the small uptick that is being used to claim longfin stocks are now recovering. Given longfins take well over a decade to reach a commercial catch weight, any real population increases would have to have begun at the height of mass dairy conversion and degradation in water quality we are observing in the South Island. Conversely, impacts being made today on breeding success and the recruitment of elvers into waterways will not affect the commercial eel harvest for over a decade. So it is unlikely that variations in catch per unit effort now, in isolation, are actually giving us good information on longfin population trends.

The independent experts commissioned by MPI found numerous problems with measures currently being used to assess eel numbers, and recommended that an integrated, long-term monitoring process begin, using a wide range of techniques and assessing all potential threats to longfins. Even adjusted for unit effort, catch rates represent the behaviour of fishers as much as the number of eels present – eel fishers are highly mobile and target just the areas where eels can be most easily caught, which can mask pervasive declines in the population.

There appears to be a difference of opinion between MPI and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as to whether the longfin population is at a harvestable level, and whether it is continuing to decline. It would seem impossible to allow a commercial fishery until, at the very least, both of these questions are settled to the satisfaction of the research community.

My opinion, speaking as a scientist, is this:

The South Island longfin quota for 2016 should be reduced to zero (0) tonnes, and maintained thus for 20 years, during which longfin populations will be monitored to determine if they are in fact recovering.

The quota should be uniform for the entire South Island, as elvers do not return to a specific stream, and so the entire breeding population of New Zealand is a single management unit, with harvestable eels in a few areas supporting the eel population of the entire country. It seems odd to allow effectively unrestricted harvest of longfins in areas like the West Coast (LFE 16) when these populations are supplying elvers, and thus determining stock levels, for the rest of the South Island.

If the quota is not reduced to zero, it should be reduced to a level well below the current commercial take, as one of the few methods available to immediately help reverse the decades-long decline of longfins. The “nominal catch” levels indicated for LFE 11, 12, 13, & 14 would be appropriate, and should be extended to LFE 15 and 16, instead of the proposed levels of half the current average commercial catch (LFE 15) or an unrestricted continuing commercial catch of 25 tonnes (LFE 16).

MPI should take the initiative in supporting a research programme, run by all fisheries biologists and ecologists with expertise in longfin eels, that will clearly determine a) a population level of longfins able to support a commerical harvest (for example, 30% of the pre-fishery stock) and b) robust, well-accepted methods of determining whether that level has been reached.

Until those methods have been settled on, and until the population has recovered to that agreed level, the TACC should remain at 0 or nominal.

This research programme should be totally or substantially funded not by the New Zealand taxpayer, but by the commercial longfin industry. If the commercial eel industry is not willing to help determine if longfin stocks can be sustainably harvested, they should no longer be allowed the privilege of taking and exporting this publicly-owned resource. Other extractive industries are responsible for determining the environmental impact of their activities: the eel fishery should be no exception.

Recreational and traditional quota should remain unchanged if not reduced to a nominal level, but a consultation and education programme should begin with iwi to give each region the option of setting traditional harvest levels to 0 – effectively, a rahui – for a similar period, and working with ecologists to monitor the health and population levels of their local longfin stocks.

Quite apart from the scientific arguments, though, about methods for assessing stock levels, I would like to propose another reason why the South Island longfin quota be set to zero.

It is abhorrent.

I believe that if most New Zealanders understood the population trends and breeding biology of longfins, and that this species was nevertheless still being caught and exported for profit, they would vote to shut the industry down tomorrow. If it were similarly-threatened native birds being harvested for export, there would be public outrage. Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that we allowed a commercial longfin industry to carry on into the 21st century, long after the decline of this species was clear; just as we do today when we recall New Zealand was still carrying out commercial whaling into the 1960s.

Thank you for considering this submission. I am happy to be heard in person in support of it if required.

Newspapers always get Latin names wrong. Over the years, I’ve submitted lots of correctly-formatted copy to editors and watched it get mangled. No more. Here are the rules (rules! not guidelines!) for using scientific names; share them with a journalist you care about.

Genus and Species

Latin names are in two parts, the genus and the species; sometimes there’s a subspecies or variety tacked on the end. “Species” is both a singular and plural noun, by the way.

The New Zealand dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori, has a North Island subspecies, C. hectori maui.

Capitals

The genus always starts with a capital letter; the species never does, even if it’s named after a person’s proper name (like Cephalorhynchus hectori).

This is the first solid evidence that “modern” humans—or Homo sapiens—interbred with their Neanderthal neighbours.

Italics

Scientific names are always (always) written in italics. Higher-level groups (which have names like family, class, and order) are never italicised.

Nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida) is the only New Zealand member of the Arecaceae or palm family.

When you’re talking about a whole genus of plants or animals, like Brassica, it’s also italicised. (Once a newspaper told me it’s “not AP style” to use italics and stripped them out, but set my byline in italics.)

Abbreviations

The first time the name’s used, genus and species are spelled in full. Subsequently you can abbreviate the genus.

Homo sapiens and H. neanderthalensis share 99.7 percent of their DNA.

If you don’t know exactly what species is referred to, or you want to talk about more than one, you can use sp. or spp. (plural) after the genus. Note: no italics.

Campylobacter spp. commonly contaminate food, and five species cause gastroenteritis in humans.

On New Year’s Day, Heaphy noted in his journal that he had shot and skinned some kind of kiwi (Apteryx sp.).

Articles

Journalists often wrongly refer to species with a definite article. It’s better to think of a Latin name as a name, like Dave Smith or Sauron.

The Anomalocaris was a large shrimp-like animal that lived 540 million years ago. [WRONG]Anomalocaris was a large shrimp-like animal that lived 540 million years ago. [RIGHT]

Special Cases

The fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, beloved of geneticists, is just referred to as Drosophila. It’s become the vernacular name, so doesn’t need italics.

The gut bacterium Escherichia coli is almost always referred to by its abbreviation, E. coli, for obvious reasons. Note: italics.

T. rex is the dinosaur, T Rex is the band.

Economists sometimes talk about the supposedly “rational human” homo economicus, which is really just a Latin phrase, not a proper biological name, so doesn’t need a capital.

Another Test

“A 24-cm-long giant amphipod, the alicella gigantean, has been found in the Kermadec Trench.” (modified from Stuff.co.nz, 23 Oct 2013)

(Answer: four. It should be Alicella gigantea, so missing italics, no capitalisation, needless definite article, and a species name which should look dubious even if your Latin is a bit rusty.)

Does it matter that newspapers get all this wrong? Yes. Geranium and Geranium aren’t interchangeable. The rules are set up so it’s as clear as possible exactly what plant, animal, or bacterial infection you’re referring to. Mess up the Latin name, and you end up talking about something else entirely, and cause confusion or even harm. Journalists pride themselves on getting things right; Latin names are easy to get right.

What the Heck, While I’m Here

CO2: No.
Co2: Nope, that’s two atoms of Cobalt.
CO2: Ugh, seriously no.
CO2: Correct! But almost never seen in a newspaper.

See also: H2O, O2, and so on.

And At No Extra Cost

Phosphorus (n.): the element.
Phosphorous (adj.): Full of phosphorus; compare with sulphurous.

In the liner notes to Stop Making Sense, David Byrne got it right: “American money is the ugliest money in the world.” (Byrne also claimed that the best way to keep your money from sticking together was to crumple it into little balls. See what you miss when you buy all your music as MP3s?)

Anyway, someone at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing felt that the five dollar bill unfortunately wasn’t quite ugly enough, so they stuck a big Barney-purple 5 on it (note the carefully-clashing sans-serif typeface—wouldn’t it be great if it turned out to be Arial?). Yes, this seems to be for real. Isn’t that the most jaw-droppingly hideous thing you’ve ever seen?

“We wanted this redesigned bill to scream, ‘I am a five. I am a five,”‘ Larry Felix, director of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing said in an interview with The Associated Press. “We wanted to eliminate any similarity or confusion on the part of the public between the $5 bill and the $100 bill.”

Well, Larry, I don’t like to tell a man his job, but have you ever considered not making all the bills the same color and size? That seems to work pretty well for, oh, every other country in the world. Actually, I know what Larry would say—every American says the same thing when you point this out to them. “Monopoly money!” Yes, it’s true. Even a child’s board game has better-designed money than the USA.

The original Monopoly design has an appealing simplicity, with slabby serifs and ball terminals in a classic transitional typeface, rather than that ludicrously bloated font on the greenback. The numbers are big and clear. There’s an anti-counterfeiting pattern, and a rather sweet repeated train and house motif—in the real world, those could be little transparent windows in a polymer bill. Heck, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing should just adopt this design as is—after all, Monopoly was invented in the Depression so ordinary people could live the American dream of being property-owning capitalists. And its inventor seems to have stolen the idea. What could be more appropriate? It’s the USA writ small.

Obsession with slavery and the Civil War (because nobody else in the world ever had slaves or a civil war) omnipresent racial politics lack of engagement with other racial problems, like genocide and immigration.

American exceptionalism insularity educated people arguing that if everyone had a gun in their home we’d all be better off, despite evidence from the rest of the world that this might not be the case.

It’s interesting to note that a New Zealander in the US saying these things is accused (more than once) of “hating America” and told to go home. An expatriate American criticizing New Zealand would likely get rueful shrugs and sighs of agreement. OK, and then people would call him a wanker behind his back, but still.